relative to establishing an alternative driver education program.
Summary
SB 39 establishes an alternative pathway for minors under 18 to qualify for a driver’s license in New Hampshire. Under current law, a 16-year-old generally must complete an approved driver education course through a school or licensed drivers’ school. This bill adds a new RSA 263:19-a program that would allow a young driver to qualify instead by completing 40 hours of supervised driving, including at least 10 hours at night, passing the required vision and knowledge tests, and completing a state-created driver training program that satisfies the road-skills requirement.
The bill also expands the state’s role in driver training. It directs the director of motor vehicles to create standards for the new program, appoint a program coordinator and potentially training specialists, and authorize public or private entities to help deliver training. It allows the commissioner of safety to adopt rules to implement the program and permits participating organizations to charge tuition up to a cap of $350 per student, subject to break-even cost limits. The bill is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2026.
Impact
SB 39 would amend RSA 263:19 and add a new RSA 263:19-a, changing how some teen drivers may satisfy licensing requirements. It would create an alternative to traditional driver education by substituting a state-administered driver training program and supervised driving documentation for the existing school- or private-school-based course pathway. The bill would also authorize the Department of Safety and DMV to establish program standards, adopt rules, contract with outside entities, and issue completion certificates, thereby expanding administrative authority over driver education and road-skills training.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have a generally supportive policy rationale centered on expanding access to driver education and creating a more flexible licensing pathway for young drivers. The sponsor list is broad, suggesting interest across multiple legislators, and there is no recorded committee testimony or vote history in the provided materials indicating organized opposition or amendment debate. At the same time, the fiscal note shows substantial anticipated costs, which likely shapes the overall discussion around feasibility and implementation rather than the underlying concept.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s cost and operational scale. The fiscal note estimates potentially very large expenditures for online instruction, staffing, vehicles, maintenance, and related infrastructure, while emphasizing that the bill provides no funding. Another likely concern is whether the DMV can realistically administer a statewide behind-the-wheel training program, including enough instructors, vehicles, and facilities to meet demand. The bill also raises questions about tuition limits, private-sector participation, and whether the state can phase in the program without delaying access for eligible New Hampshire residents.